Climate Change - The Scientific Debate (Vol. II)
Discussion
I appreciate the responses, thanks.
I'm very familiar with metrology, having been in the precision engineering side of the manufacturing industry for 23 years.
That's also why I'm confused by how a measurement device from >100 years ago would be directly comparable with the equipment we have today.
I struggle to see how a gauge R&R study would be returning <10% for a glass thermometer in 1880. Even assuming it was the best quality one. As GRR shows, the device is one thing, the person(s) reading it is another.
I'm very familiar with metrology, having been in the precision engineering side of the manufacturing industry for 23 years.
That's also why I'm confused by how a measurement device from >100 years ago would be directly comparable with the equipment we have today.
I struggle to see how a gauge R&R study would be returning <10% for a glass thermometer in 1880. Even assuming it was the best quality one. As GRR shows, the device is one thing, the person(s) reading it is another.
remedy said:
I appreciate the responses, thanks.
I'm very familiar with metrology, having been in the precision engineering side of the manufacturing industry for 23 years.
That's also why I'm confused by how a measurement device from >100 years ago would be directly comparable with the equipment we have today.
I struggle to see how a gauge R&R study would be returning <10% for a glass thermometer in 1880. Even assuming it was the best quality one. As GRR shows, the device is one thing, the person(s) reading it is another.
If the max temp in a year was 25C and the lowest was say - 5C, the total study variation would be 30C. So a 10% GRR would give an error of 3 degrees in each reading. With a thermometer with 0.1C resolution, I don't think the reproducibility (Have I got that the right way round??) of using a human to read and record would be greater than 10%? Maybe 2%? 0.6C max? I'm very familiar with metrology, having been in the precision engineering side of the manufacturing industry for 23 years.
That's also why I'm confused by how a measurement device from >100 years ago would be directly comparable with the equipment we have today.
I struggle to see how a gauge R&R study would be returning <10% for a glass thermometer in 1880. Even assuming it was the best quality one. As GRR shows, the device is one thing, the person(s) reading it is another.
Therefore I would accept the measurement system, unless you were not considering the total variation? I think you need to look at the total variation that the instrument is recording.
Unless I have misunderstood your point?
The bigger issue would perhaps be a systemic bias in the measurement system rather than variability. So, for example, the operator consistently looks at the wrong end of the meniscus. So perhaps a 0.1C difference (I am not familiar with these measurements devices though).
Averaged over a month or year the operator variation would not be a concern or impact the GRR.
Edited by mike9009 on Friday 7th June 09:51
Oh look, the BBC has an article about how June is colder than normal.
So what do we think? Is this because meteorologists can only report statistics on weather that has actually been happening? Or is this just a bluff so they can wait until the climate change deniers are looking the other way before shouting "lol actually it's a record breaking hot one. PSYCH!!!"
https://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/articles/c044x1xz42g...
So what do we think? Is this because meteorologists can only report statistics on weather that has actually been happening? Or is this just a bluff so they can wait until the climate change deniers are looking the other way before shouting "lol actually it's a record breaking hot one. PSYCH!!!"
https://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/articles/c044x1xz42g...
I'm seeing a lot of guff about how May can't possibly be the warmest ever because "I had to wear a woolly hat".
Even if the met office were deliberately deceiving the public I think globally India, at 13 times the size of the UK, more than nullifies any numerical shenanigans.
Hottest summer for 120 years.
![](https://forums-images.pistonheads.com/183541/202406115329898?resize=720)
Even if the met office were deliberately deceiving the public I think globally India, at 13 times the size of the UK, more than nullifies any numerical shenanigans.
Hottest summer for 120 years.
Lawro said:
I'm seeing a lot of guff about how May can't possibly be the warmest ever because "I had to wear a woolly hat".
Even if the met office were deliberately deceiving the public I think globally India, at 13 times the size of the UK, more than nullifies any numerical shenanigans.
Hottest summer for 120 years.
![](https://forums-images.pistonheads.com/183541/202406115329898?resize=720)
Ah, but India having a hot summer is obviously irrelevant to climate change because you expect India to be hot... Even if the met office were deliberately deceiving the public I think globally India, at 13 times the size of the UK, more than nullifies any numerical shenanigans.
Hottest summer for 120 years.
My thermometers are clearly the only metric that matters in this debate. I've got one in the fridge and the other in the airing cupboard and they're showing different temperatures. Therefore climate change is a myth.
donkmeister said:
Lawro said:
I'm seeing a lot of guff about how May can't possibly be the warmest ever because "I had to wear a woolly hat".
Even if the met office were deliberately deceiving the public I think globally India, at 13 times the size of the UK, more than nullifies any numerical shenanigans.
Hottest summer for 120 years.
![](https://forums-images.pistonheads.com/183541/202406115329898?resize=720)
Ah, but India having a hot summer is obviously irrelevant to climate change because you expect India to be hot... Even if the met office were deliberately deceiving the public I think globally India, at 13 times the size of the UK, more than nullifies any numerical shenanigans.
Hottest summer for 120 years.
My thermometers are clearly the only metric that matters in this debate. I've got one in the fridge and the other in the airing cupboard and they're showing different temperatures. Therefore climate change is a myth.
Averages are hopeless.
So, it is probably not the hottest but just how the data is portrayed.
Am I doing this right??
![laugh](/inc/images/laugh.gif)
donkmeister said:
Oh look, the BBC has an article about how June is colder than normal.
So what do we think? Is this because meteorologists can only report statistics on weather that has actually been happening? Or is this just a bluff so they can wait until the climate change deniers are looking the other way before shouting "lol actually it's a record breaking hot one. PSYCH!!!"
https://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/articles/c044x1xz42g...
Colder than normal is also an expected outcome of climate change, so it’s further supporting evidence.So what do we think? Is this because meteorologists can only report statistics on weather that has actually been happening? Or is this just a bluff so they can wait until the climate change deniers are looking the other way before shouting "lol actually it's a record breaking hot one. PSYCH!!!"
https://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/articles/c044x1xz42g...
Kawasicki said:
donkmeister said:
Oh look, the BBC has an article about how June is colder than normal.
So what do we think? Is this because meteorologists can only report statistics on weather that has actually been happening? Or is this just a bluff so they can wait until the climate change deniers are looking the other way before shouting "lol actually it's a record breaking hot one. PSYCH!!!"
https://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/articles/c044x1xz42g...
Colder than normal is also an expected outcome of climate change, so it’s further supporting evidence.So what do we think? Is this because meteorologists can only report statistics on weather that has actually been happening? Or is this just a bluff so they can wait until the climate change deniers are looking the other way before shouting "lol actually it's a record breaking hot one. PSYCH!!!"
https://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/articles/c044x1xz42g...
Repent you sinners, it's all your fault.
![hehe](/inc/images/hehe.gif)
Kawasicki said:
donkmeister said:
Oh look, the BBC has an article about how June is colder than normal.
So what do we think? Is this because meteorologists can only report statistics on weather that has actually been happening? Or is this just a bluff so they can wait until the climate change deniers are looking the other way before shouting "lol actually it's a record breaking hot one. PSYCH!!!"
https://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/articles/c044x1xz42g...
Colder than normal is also an expected outcome of climate change, so it’s further supporting evidence.So what do we think? Is this because meteorologists can only report statistics on weather that has actually been happening? Or is this just a bluff so they can wait until the climate change deniers are looking the other way before shouting "lol actually it's a record breaking hot one. PSYCH!!!"
https://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/articles/c044x1xz42g...
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff